To improve the rigour of permit application assessment and

ANAO Report No.3 2015–16 Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Approvals 71 vesselaircraftfacility approvals; permit cover letter to the applicant; andor refusal letter are submitted to the delegate together with a recommendation to approve or refuse the granting of a permit. In 78 of the 79 permit assessments examined by the ANAO, the assessment reports contained recommendations that were supported by the assessments prepared, with the delegate agreeing with all recommendations 76 of which were to grant a permit and two to refuse a permit. Those assessments involving permits that apply to the coast Marine Park were also approved by a delegate from QPWS.

4.4 In relation to the remaining assessment, which related to an application

to dump capital dredge spoil in the Marine Park off the coast of Abbot Point, the GBRMPA delegate received an assessment report for this activity that contained four options for consideration. The delegate did not request a recommendation from the assessment officer for this case. 77 The four options proposed were to either refuse to grant a Marine Park permit or grant a Marine Park permit under three separate scenarios canvassed in the permit assessment.

4.5 The assessment report and supporting documentation for this

non-routine permit application highlighted high residual risks that is, risks remaining following treatment to the Marine Park posed by the proposed activity. The determination of residual risk was informed by an assessment of available documentation including scientific studies, established environmental standards and documentation prepared by, or on the behalf of, the applicant against the mandatory and relevant discretionary considerations required under the GBRMP Regulations. The assessment also reflected specialised scientific input provided by different areas within GBRMPA and external organisations.

4.6 During the assessment, GBRMPA staff raised issues regarding the

comprehensiveness of information provided by the applicant and the likely effectiveness of the management strategies and potential conditions to manage the risks that the project posed to the Marine Park. The documentation retained by GBRMPA relating to the assessment process did not, however, indicate that these issues were substantively addressed. 78 Further, the delegate and the assessment team held differing views in relation to aspects of the assessment, 77 GBRMPA informed the ANAO that a recommendation had not been requested because of the complex nature of the permit assessment and the range of approval options available. 78 Shortcomings in the management of records associated with the assessment of this permit application, such as key documents not being retained on assessment files, indicates that there is scope for GBRMPA to improve its record management practices for complex permit application assessments. ANAO Report No.3 2015–16 Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Approvals 72 including some of the underlying assumptions, the risk analysis and the draft findings and conclusions. GBRMPA informed the ANAO that, given the limited time between the finalisation of the assessment report and the deadline for a decision less than two weeks, it was not practicable for the assessment report to be modified to address the issues raised by the delegate.

4.7 After considering the final assessment report and supporting

documentation, the delegate determined that the most appropriate option was to grant a permit for the project Option 3. The broad outline of the reasons for the delegate’s decision did not, however, fully explain the basis on which the relevant option was selected, nor address the specific issues raised in the assessment report. GBRMPA informed the ANAO that the reason the permit decision was not documented in greater detail primarily related to time constraints caused by statutory deadlines for related approvals, the delayed finalisation of the assessment report, the complexity of the assessment, and the refinement of risk mitigation strategies as part of the development of the permit. A more comprehensive explanation of the basis on which the delegate approved the permit was subsequently provided one and a half months later when GBRMPA prepared and published a statement of reasons in response to a number of requests for such a statement received after the decision was made. 79

4.8 The delegate’s statement of reasons acknowledged gaps in information

modellingcoverage and other uncertainties about the project’s impact on the Marine Park environment. Nevertheless, the delegate formed the opinion that the risks to the Marine Park posed by the project could be adequately managed after assessing mandatory and relevant discretionary considerations in light of available information—placing particular emphasis on: • documentation prepared by, or on the behalf of, the applicant; • documentation supporting the project’s approval by the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act and subsequent approval conditions imposed; and • additional conditions to be imposed under the proposed Marine Park permit. 79 GBRMPA further advised that there is no specific requirement to provide the statement of reasons at the time that a decision is made.